|
It's always fun to go down the list of denied/approved security clearances and see what the reasons were - most of the time it's being in hideous amounts of debt, and either being unwilling to get paid up, or trying to hide it E: Page snipe, cool plane  E2: quote:Moreover, Applicant testified that, after his second alcohol-related incident, he abstained from drinking and driving for approximately sixy ears because the “ramifications” of that incident were “very fresh in [his] mind.” However, as time passed, he stated that he “felt more comfortable having a couple of drinks and driving.” Favorable decision reversed.
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 15:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:29 |
|
|
drgitlin posted:I only had to give all *my* PII to China in return. One of us. One of us.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 15:58
|
|
|
DrAlexanderTobacco posted:E: Page snipe, cool plane From Finland's HX program: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 16:09
|
|
|
DrAlexanderTobacco posted:It's always fun to go down the list of denied/approved security clearances and see what the reasons were - most of the time it's being in hideous amounts of debt, and either being unwilling to get paid up, or trying to hide it Why is an 80 year old man applying for a security clearance
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 17:28
|
|
|
zoux posted:Why is an 80 year old man applying for a security clearance CCCP sleeper agent who got caught up in life's hustle and bustle 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 17:30
|
|
|
Man I feel bad for this one:quote:Applicant has worked in Iraq for many years in support of U.S. objectives. In the mid-2000s, her family was threatened with death unless Applicant and her siblings quit their jobs. Two of Applicant’s siblings engaged in numerous actions harmful to U.S. interests, whether in response to this letter or not. Applicant’s relationship with them, even if broken off after receipt of the SOR, suggests that she could come to the attention of persons hostile to the U.S., as she already did in the recent past. Most significantly, she has an immediate family relationship with two persons who have engaged in actions hostile to U.S. interests. As noted above, the Judge failed to evaluate Applicant’s case in light of Disqualifying Condition 7(d). Favorable decision reversed. CASE NO: 17-01981.a1 Your family was blackmailed, so you're hosed too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 18:46
|
|
|
I feel bad for them, but it's still a solid reason not to give them a security clearance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 18:47
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:I feel bad for them, but it's still a solid reason not to give them a security clearance. Same.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 18:48
|
|
|
zoux posted:Why is an 80 year old man applying for a security clearance 99% chance it's a periodic reinvestigation of a clearance already held for decades. NightGyr posted:Man I feel bad for this one: It sucks, but honestly if you or your family is in a position to be endangered by your clearance it's probably for your benefit too to have it pulled.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 20:31
|
|
|
 A lot of that list is mundane but there's a few that stick out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
Uh, how was that guy not in jail
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 20:42
|
|
|
zoux posted:Uh, how was that guy not in jail You can admit to crimes on clearance forms/interviews without facing charges. There's not enough context there to really know, but it's possible he was afraid someone would out him in an interview and volunteered the info to avoid evidence of being untruthful or hiding a blackmail liability? It's also possible they have the info some other way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 20:48
|
|
zoux posted:Uh, how was that guy not in jail He was a cop? 
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:You can admit to crimes on clearance forms/interviews without facing charges. There's not enough context there to really know, but it's possible he was afraid someone would out him in an interview and volunteered the info to avoid evidence of being untruthful or hiding a blackmail liability? It's also possible they have the info some other way. No I get that, I just mean, sure seemed like he was jacking off publicly a lot for many years, without getting in trouble. Also you say "can" there, so can someone get charged based on stuff uncovered in a background check? That Works posted:He was a cop? Ah. Say no more.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 21:45
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:The big public leaks with ideological motivations (Snowden, Manning) get all the press. But when you actually count up spies and their motivations though, it's overwhelmingly money, followed by ego. Saying Manning's leaks were ideologically motivated is... ehhh, not technically wrong but I feel it really needs an asterisk next to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 22:12
|
|
|
C.M. Kruger posted:See also: Benedict Arnold. One of the most competent American commanders in the Revolution but he turned traitor because he kept getting passed over for commands/promotions that should have gone to him but went to other, less competent commanders due to politics and egos. loving Horatio Gates has a lot of poo poo during/after the Revolution to answer for. Arnold's story is particularly sad for me; Washington always loved the guy, and not long before the whole thing went down he wrote him a letter pleading that he needed his friend and best tactical commander (and best admiral, too, if it came to it) back in the saddle and would Arnold please come join the field army again, and don't worry about Congress loving things up again. He was probably too far gone at that point, but it's really a shame they didn't get the band back together. Stravag posted:It may be typical woman blaming too but from what i remember in school his wife was really pushing him towards it too because she wanted to go back to England I read the same thing growing up, yeah. Or, related, the story that Peggy really enjoyed the finer things in life and Arnold needed more money to keep her interested. Almost certainly at least partly woman-blaming, as you say, but we'll probably never know for certain how it all happened. She was definitely the contact with John Andre, and came from a family with Tory leanings. Notgothic fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Feb 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 23:22
|
|
|
It may be typical woman blaming too but from what i remember in school his wife was really pushing him towards it too because she wanted to go back to England
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 23:41
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:You can admit to crimes on clearance forms/interviews without facing charges. They can 100% report you to the cops if you admit crimes that are serious enough. Murder, molesting kids, armed robbery, etc - you're gonna have a bad time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2020 23:50
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:They can 100% report you to the cops if you admit crimes that are serious enough. Murder, molesting kids, armed robbery, etc - you're gonna have a bad time. I get the feeling that jerking off in public is a bit like driving drunk when it comes to legal penalties - it only matters if you get caught or there's an actual victim.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 00:01
|
|
That Works posted:He was a cop? Actually more likely to get you turned in, as this idiot found out when he applied to th e CIA. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Police_Troop_C_scandal quote:The scandal became known when Trooper David L. Harding was interviewed for a job at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He was asked if he was willing to break the law for his country. He answered "yes", then explained how he worked to convict people he felt sure were guilty by fabricating evidence. He assumed the CIA would be pleased with his answer, but instead they notified the United States Department of Justice. There was a 14-month delay between the discovery of the misconduct and any action taken.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 00:03
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Actually more likely to get you turned in, as this idiot found out when he applied to th e CIA. Hahah
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 00:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kroenig/status/1224851485521076224 Glad you're proud of yourself, Matt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 01:23
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:https://twitter.com/oriana0214/status/1224787799980892160?s=21 How different would Rolling Thunder and Linebacker have been with Tomahawks/modern cruise missiles?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 01:30
|
|
|
Hurray? Werent low yield nukes already on subs in the form of torps? I assumed in the height of cold war stupidity that was a thing that happened
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 01:30
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:How different would Rolling Thunder and Linebacker have been with Tomahawks/modern cruise missiles?  No substitute for this
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 01:35
|
|
|
Stravag posted:Hurray? Werent low yield nukes already on subs in the form of torps? I assumed in the height of cold war stupidity that was a thing that happened They existed, but the U.S. phased theirs out in the seventies. I don’t know about Russia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 01:38
|
|
|
Stravag posted:Hurray? Werent low yield nukes already on subs in the form of torps? I assumed in the height of cold war stupidity that was a thing that happened A low yield nuclear weapon on a tomahawk or a torpedo is an entirely different beast than one that can be on target anywhere in the world in less than a half-hour, and waaaaay less if the boomer is close by.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 01:47
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:How different would Rolling Thunder and Linebacker have been with Tomahawks/modern cruise missiles? Less expensive in (American) lives, but equally useless in that we were trying to use airpower do something it cannot accomplish on its own, which is convincing another nation to capitulate to our will. It didn't work the previous three times, and precision weapons didn't work to do it the next several conflicts we used them in.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 01:47
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:How different would Rolling Thunder and Linebacker have been with Tomahawks/modern cruise missiles? I'm not a certified Vietnamologist so this is totally off the cuff speculation, but I suspect that cruise missiles wouldn't have made as much of a difference as some other potential technologies a time traveler could deliver. Tomahawks are great at taking out high value point targets like C2 nodes and SAM emplacements, but if you're going for wide scale infrastructure destruction, it's hard to beat Now, they definitely could have helped if used intelligently to take out those air defenses and allow the B-52's to do their thing with less resistance, but we couldn't have just sat back lobbing TLAM all day and nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 01:49
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:How different would Rolling Thunder and Linebacker have been with Tomahawks/modern cruise missiles? Would they get modern ISR? Global Hawks, Predators, Satellites? Targeting makes all the difference. Targets also tend to learn, which is sort of a pain.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:09
|
|
|
Wouldn't a large number of drones with modern IR cameras completely change the nature of the Vietnam bombing war? Imagine having Gorgon Stare during all that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:13
|
|
|
There's still a lot of jungle to hide in, and a whole population that isn't in the mood for our poo poo. You'd get a higher body count, maybe lower American casualties, but you'd never win that war by killing Vietnamese.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:18
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:There's still a lot of jungle to hide in, and a whole population that isn't in the mood for our poo poo. I mean you could, but not without being a mass war-criming monster doing Assad style depopulation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:33
|
|
|
wiegieman posted:Wouldn't a large number of drones with modern IR cameras completely change the nature of the Vietnam bombing war? Imagine having Gorgon Stare during all that. I suspect with that sort of support you'd potentially get to go from losing the Vietnam War to simply killing a shitload more enemy combatants, having less US/ARVN casualties, but not winning either. Maybe the US/ARVN forces operated from more or less secure outposts and crushed major attacks before they could materialize and doing significantly more effective jobs cutting up enemy supply lines, but still ultimately not just "beating" North Vietnam and the VC. For a long time. Until Americans grew weary of it or the South Vietnamese asked us to leave, maybe. I dunno, counterfactuals hard, so what.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:34
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:I mean you could, but not without being a mass war-criming monster doing Assad style depopulation. We sure did try though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:34
|
|
|
Stravag posted:Hurray? Werent low yield nukes already on subs in the form of torps? I assumed in the height of cold war stupidity that was a thing that happened It's actually pretty far from "hurray" because every other Commander in Chief has regarded the use of tactical nuclear weapons in an asymmetric context as being an uncrossable line, whereas this one threatens it out-of-hand roughly every 3-6 months, and dropped a MOAB because bigly tremendous boom and it was a good headline. On one hand, it decreases the amount of strategic warheads fielded, but it drastically increases the likelihood of the W76-2 being utilized over a flight of F-22s and F-35s being ordered to fly into airspace defended by S-300PMU2s or better. From a strategic planning perspective, it also forces deterrence patrols into a narrower box since it's way more likely the lower-yield warheads will be employed over the world-enders and that alters delivery profiles, but that's the last I'm going to say about that because  . It's a really dumb move - they should've left boomers alone. If you want a prompt nuclear strike option, pour more money into hypersonic cruise missiles, put them on the Block V Virginias (which are still a good number of years away) and/or heavy bombers and call it a day.The biggest problem with low-yield nukes is that they're a Pandora's Box that's really hard to close once it's open. "It's only 300 tons, that's a squadron of B-52s dropping JDAMs!" "It's only two kilotons, that's like 8-10% of the Trinity test!" "It's only ten kilotons, that's *half* the Trinity test. A big nothingburger!" "Okay, it's fifty kilotons, but if the winds keep blowing in the direction we think it will, there'll be minimal civilian casualties." Platystemon posted:They existed, but the U.S. phased theirs out in the seventies. Shkval's still a thing (when it doesn't explode), and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if Russia still doesn't have a few nuclear depth bombs collecting dust in a bunker somewhere for their SS-N-15s.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:35
|
|
|
The hurray was sarcastic because i couldn't see a good reason for it in today's conflicts. Any really but today's in particular
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:41
|
|
|
I am reading Command and Control now. It's good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 02:50
|
|
|
How effective are thermals/ EOIR in a hot, humid high foliage jungle?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:29 |
|
|
Sorry I don't know that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2020 03:01
|
|